When asked why she thought so many women – according to CNN 53% of white women voted for Trump – Madonna replied:

Women hate women. That’s what I think it is. Women’s nature is not to support other women. It’s really sad. Men protect each other, and women protect their men and children. Women turn inward and men are more external. A lot of it has do with jealousy and some sort of tribal inability to accept that one of their kind could lead a nation. Other people just didn’t bother to vote because they didn’t like either candidate, or they didn’t think Trump had a chance in the world. They took their hands off the wheel and then the car crashed.

Alright, so I’m going to give you my thoughts on this quote and hit me with yours in the comment section.

First off, I think it’s ridiculous to expect people to vote based on genitalia. When I vote, I don’t care whether the politician is male or female. I don’t vote for other males because I want to support my male brothers…whatever that means.

I vote based on policy and who I think will best represent my interests.

I think her entire point is garbage. What is a tribal inability? Why do you think men protect each other and women only care about their men and children? Why does Madonna think so little of women in general?

It reminds me of this epic meltdown by Anna Kasparian of The Young Turks during the election.

These people refuse to consider that women might have voted Trump for other reasons. Instead of blaming the Democratic Party who nominated someone people dislike just as much or more so than Trump, they just want to blame women, white people, Christian’s or whatever demographic they can think of.

Whether you agree with Hillary or not; whether you believe that Hillary would have made a better President or not; this election wasn’t about women hating women. It was about women not liking one woman in particular and about Americans as a group not liking what she was selling.

The controversial men’s rights documentary The Red Pill will be screened at Ottawa City Hall on Sunday after the Mayfair Theatre cancelled its scheduled showing over complaints.

Theatre co-owner and programmer Lee Demarbre said long-time patrons and a sponsor threatened to stop doing business with the Ottawa venue if the film screening went ahead.

If you’re unfamiliar with the documentary, here’s a bit about it:

American filmmaker Cassie Jaye said she was researching rape culture for her next documentary subject when she came across the men’s right movement. She initially thought members of the group would fall into the categories of “rape apologists” or “victim blamers” but said she soon began questioning her own beliefs.

She found that the movement includes advocacy for fathers rights, male victims of domestic violence and male victims of sexual abuse, as well as discussions about male suicide rates, boys falling behind in school and men as more “disposable” than women.

“I’ve noticed that most of us are very quick to laugh and scoff at men’s issues but if the genders were reversed that would be hateful, hate speech, sexist, misogynist. So that was what was really challenging me during filming — my sexism, I guess, toward men’s issues,” she told CBC News, adding that her own struggle became part of the documentary.

My favorite part of the article was this bit:

Lalonde, one of several who complained to the Mayfair Theatre, called the documentary “misogynistic” though she said has only seen clips, not the entire film. She said a controversial film does not have an inherent right to be screened.

She feels comfortable enough to label it as hateful towards all women, but she has only seen clips of it.

Okay, so there was a news story on the weekend that was quite interesting. Basically, the American Vice President-Elect went to see the play, Hamilton, and once the show had concluded, the cast delivered a message to him.

You can watch the full speech at the end of this post. Here’s what the cast had to say:

“There’s nothing to boo here, we’re all here sharing a story of love,” Dixon said. “We have a message for you, sir.”

“Vice President-elect Pence, welcome. Thank you for joining us at Hamilton – An American Musical. We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and work on behalf of ALL of us,” Dixon said.

That’s the gist of what they said.

Afterwards, Trump had this to say on Twitter.

Here’s what I think of the whole thing.

First off, I think the cast of Hamilton was within their rights to do what they did. I’m assuming that the people they work for were on board with this speech or else they’d be risking their jobs. I also don’t think what they said was particularly controversial.

However, I do think Dixon and the cast of Hamilton were on full virtue signal mode. He states right at the beginning that people should take out their phones and record his speech, because it’s something that needs to be spread far and wide.

They could have delivered the same message without the public audience, but they chose to virtue signal (and likely gain more publicity for their show) instead of doing so.

Asked about the casting call, the city Human Rights Commission reiterated that discrimination based on age, race, gender, disability and “other protected categories in employment advertisements” is prohibited.

Pence sought to address Dixon’s concerns. “They are going to see President-elect Trump be a president for all of the people and we embrace that principle,” Pence said.

And he followed it up with:

Pence noted that there were some boos and cheers when he arrived at the theater. He recalled telling his kids of the response: “That’s what freedom sounds like.”

Seems like a measured response. I particularly like him saying the boos were freedom of speech in action.

Trump on the other hand, I don’t agree with at all. While I can sort of understand if Pence were to be upset about being publicly shamed, I have no idea what the f*ck Trump is talking about.

A safe space? Really?

I thought this guy was supposed to champion ‘freedom of speech’, but here he is going full SJW and calling for safe spaces in theaters.

There are no safe spaces. They don’t deliver play dough and coloring books to you in a theater. You’re both (soon to be) the most powerful people on the planet. Everything you do will be scrutinized, criticized and talked about. You better get used to it. Is he going to take to Twitter every time someone says something he doesn’t like?

Grow the hell up, man. You’re the President-Elect. Don’t you have better things to be doing than trying to protect your V.P’s feels?

You know, like learning to run a country?

If I were to go to a theater and had this speech delivered to me afterwards, I’m fairly positive I wouldn’t be happy about it. I can understand why someone would think it was rude, and maybe it was. However, that’s what free speech is all about. Free speech doesn’t need to be protected when it’s easy. It needs to be protected when it’s hard; when someone says something upsetting or something you don’t agree with.

The whole story is just rather annoying, which is why I didn’t write about it earlier. You have some virtue signalling, hypocritical people on one side and a cry-baby who takes to Twitter to demand apologies and safe-spaces on the other.

Both sides look ridiculous, but that pretty much sums up this whole circus of an election doesn’t it?

It seems like we live in a cyber-universe where you can’t be friends if you disagree over one issue. It’s like you must agree on everything or the other person is a useless human being.

I watch a lot of YouTube, and I always get a kick out of seeing comments where people unsubscribe because their favorite YouTuber said something they didn’t agree with. It’s like people just want to live in an echo-chamber where no other thoughts, ideas or opinions can get through.

I was having a back and forth with a blogger over the election. We agreed on some things and disagreed on others. For me it was actually fun to exchange ideas, although I’m aware that sometimes I don’t come off as the friendliest of people when I’m disagreeing with someone. I’m generally polite (I think?) but I do tend to get very analytical about the whole thing.

Something for me to work on. *wink*

Anyhow, they said this after I told them that their blog was one of my favorites and our discussion wasn’t a personal thing:

You got me! Same here. And if you can ‘bring it’ in debate like this and we still remain online chums, (plus the added bonus of Duke and Dexter!), it would not be possible to love what you do and admire you more.

I’m not going to reveal who the comment came from this time around out of respect, but the comment made me feel bad but good at the same time.

Bad because of the atmosphere that seems to permeate the Internet and doesn’t allow for two people to disagree, debate and exchange ideas without the assumption that it’s personal.

And good because I admire them a lot as well, I was flattered by their praise, and I was glad that our discussion didn’t mean we couldn’t be online friends in the future.

You see, this blog is about exploring tough topics. I throw my ideas out there and allow people to join the conversation and express their point of view. I don’t want this to be an echo-chamber. I don’t want to use PC language and self-censor myself to the point where I’m saying nothing at all.

Sure, this blog is also about me sharing my life and sometimes things that make me laugh, but if you follow this blog for awhile, you’ll quickly notice that a thread runs throughout – it’s about exploring ideas, sharing ideas and listening to others even when their opinions don’t match mine.

Sometimes those ideas or topics are tough, inflammatory or hard to express, and that’s okay.

I believe our world needs less tribalism, less rigid ideologies and more conversation.